Saturday, October 24, 2009

Good Question

In the [Barrie] Examiner article 'MPs being kept in 'cheque'', [CPoC MP] Patrick Brown states that he does not use the Conservative party logo on those over-sized novelty cheques he poses with.

Perhaps Mr. Brown ought to look at some of the materials he sends out at the taxpayers' expense before he declares himself innocent of using the taxpayers' funds to promote his party.

How about the ads he has run on the front page of the Examiner which have included the party logo? Were they paid for by the Conservative Party, or we're they paid out of Mr. Brown's taxpayer- funded MP office budget?


CanadianSense said...

Do you think crying wolf on every issues is helping the political landscape or do you think this might result in more Canadians tuning out from politics?

Buzz Hargrove

"It seems like every day in the House and the legislatures across the country, political parties of all stripes are just trying to find a way that they can attack the personal side of individual members of Parliament or the prime minister or whoever," Hargrove told in a telephone interview earlier this week.

"And that's not the politics that I grew up with. You stuck with issues and you challenged people on issues and what they stood for. So I just didn't see standing up in the House and criticizing somebody for an expense sheet that they billed for a coffee or something as being very substantive or contributing much to the country."
- Andrea Janus, News Saturday Oct. 24, 2009

Do you agree with Buzz the politicans are failing to address the substantive issues?

bigcitylib said...

How is asking who paid for a political ad in a local newspaper attacking the "personal side" of the MP in question.

Tof KW said...

Right CS, we should just leave Harper & crew alone and let them attack the opposition without challenge.

BCL - don't bother debating him, it's about as effective as banging your head against a wall.

Gene Rayburn said...

CS is the Iggywanker after all...

Ti-Guy said...

Remember...this Conservative Party political campaign has cost well over a 100 million dollars in public funds.

That's substantive.

CanadianSense said...


This post is a fair question. I did not intend to malign this specific post. I raised a general question about the damage the go negative destroy everything (salt the earth) campaign practiced by all parties?

I am for an adult conversation. Everytime a serious question is asked "conbot" and "go away" is posted by a small number of the smear brigade.

I don't like the attack ads, they work. They exist.

I think it is fair to raise objections about the amount of money being used by government and the efficiency of those projects.

I don't subscribe to the grade 3 math by suggesting reviewing 10-35% of the projects anyone can make a substantive fact based arguement.

Why will the opposition refuse to repeat what they say inside the HOC outside without the legal protection, if they had real evidence?

Will this lower turnout in the next election? In every paper, I am reading gov't scandal, corruption, mismangement abuse, peddling etc.

CanadianSense said...

Tkw, Ray

I am not suggesting the opposition lay down.

On another post Tokw I asked you to explain the geopolitical forces and the costs of dealing with the changes you want from AGW. You ran away.

Ray you have repeatedly attacked posters who are voting for other parties. How does this help improve debate on any blog?

The host allows posts from dissenting views. If you have a problem with this host and his blog please take it up with him privately.

RuralSandi said...

CS - do you think commenting on every blog in existence several times a day, 7 days a week is affecting the political landscape - given that most find you pitiful? I just read who your favourites blogs are - now that explains your idiocy. Go for a walk.

Sheila Copps said on CTV Power Play that when she was in cabinet their whole budget for advertising was $25 million for the "whole year".

CanadianSense said...

RS as a member of the smear brigade cyberstaking me again?

I am not deluded to think my posts affect "political landscape".

I post and ask bloggers questions.

Some reply, some ignore, some smear and call for censorship.

RS why do you feel it is appropriate to smear and cyberstalk posters on the numerous blogs you visit?

Tof KW said...

"On another post Tokw I asked you to explain the geopolitical forces and the costs of dealing with the changes you want from AGW. You ran away."

I did not run away, my answer was quite clear. I am not about to debate with someone that understands nothing of the scientific method or the world of academia, and calls the works of hundreds of thousands of researchers a ‘religion’ based on faith.

Geopolitical forces of climate/meteorological scientists?

I’m a former bio grad who switched careers because the only decent money to be made was to become a PhD, fight for funding and a position within any university then wait for tenure. My wife was studying carbon sequestration methods in agriculture when funding was cut by, wait for it, the Martin Liberals. She’s given up too and has now left the science field for a new career. In terms of funding, my old phycology research grants were from the government, as were my wife’s.

Giving my personal history I reply with this, what about the geopolitical forces making certain we never switch from using fossil fuels?
I don’t expect an answer, though I know you will just spew more of your batshit here.
And again, I’m not about to debate you on scientific issues, as I don’t debate with ignorant boobs.

Ti-Guy said...

I did not intend to malign this specific post.

It's this kind bad writing that demonstrates that some people can't think.

For someone who's read every classic ever written, it seems rather suspicious that he should produce prose as inelegant as this.

I smell poseur.

CanadianSense said...

You have your view of AGW, I conceded your right to your belief.

I asked you to move beyond that roadblock of calling us "deniers".

1)Geopolitical (UN, Carbon Police)
3)How much

I have said I am not interested in debating what Group A scientists publish vs Group B scientists (Shills Oil Energy hacks) as reasonable debate.

I am only concerned about the execution of the AGW discussion.


Ontario E-health

low tech objective making records electronic to improve sharing of information..blah blah blah.

So far we have a Report and the opposition crying scandal.

I live in Ontario and we are talkin about only $ 1 Billion.

I am not denying your right to believe in your science. Is my request or concern for part two unreasonable?

Ti-Guy said...

You have your own fucking blog, Oakville Crackpot. If you want dictate what the topic is, I suggest you do that there. Your attempts at channel changing and your meandering stream of consciousness is really irritating.

Not to mention distressingly common these days, since lack of focus and blither are what passes for serious discussion and, God help us, "debate." Everywhere.

RuralSandi said...

Geez CS - it wouldn't be because you are annoying and can't stay on topic or anything like that would it?

You babble continually.

Gayle said...

"RS why do you feel it is appropriate to smear and cyberstalk posters on the numerous blogs you visit?"

Hey, answer that one yourself pal. You are the one who starts whining about what a nasty person I am on every conservative blog I visit.

Conservative hypocrisy is so reliable.

robert_viera said...

The entire un-edited question, which also referred to Mr. Brown putting out a householder with a six-inch high Conservative Party logo on it can be found at: